Judgment : L. Narasimha Reddy, J. The appellant herein, the sole accused in S.C.No.155 of 2008 on the file of the Sessions Judge, Ongole, was tried for the offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C., and was convicted by the trial Court through its judgment, dated 18.08.2008. Sentence of imprisonment for life was imposed. It was alleged that the appellant and his wife, the deceased, are residents of Nelapatipalle Village, Pedecherlopalli Mandal, Prakasam District, and they proceeded to Kanigiri, on 12.12.2008, for treatment of the appellant and that when the Doctor, who examined him, advised them to go to Ongole for better treatment, both of them, went to Government Head Quarters Hospital, Ongole. After the treatment, they are said to have gone to Marlapadu Village at about 9.00 P.M., to the house of distant relation of the accused, Yanubari Abraham (PW.2) and stayed there overnight. PW.2 and his wife – PW.1 are said to have noticed that the accused and his wife, the deceased, were quarrelling during night, and in the morning also, there was some quarrel between them. While PW.1 is said to have gone to a financing agency, for payment of a chit amount, PW.2 is said to have gone out, after taking breakfast, at about 8.00 A.M. It was alleged that taking advantage of the absence of PWs.1 and 2, the accused killed his wife, the deceased, by beating her with hands, kicking with legs and strangulating. The reason for the killing is said to be the suspicion of the accused about the character of his wife, the deceased. PW.1 submitted a complaint before P.S. – Tangutur at around 12.30 noon, on 13.02.2008, narrating the facts mentioned above. It is further stated that when she was returning home and reached Peraiah’s Bunk, the accused was coming in the opposite direction in a disturbed condition and told her that he killed his wife, the deceased, and that she does not have to worry about it. The accused is said to have informed her that he would go and surrender before the police. She has also named certain persons, who were said to be present, when the accused informed her about the incident. On receipt of Ex.P.1, the Sub-Inspector of Police – PW.10 registered Crime No.20 of 2008, under Section 302 I.P.C., against the accused, and started investigation. She has also named certain persons, who were said to be present, when the accused informed her about the incident. On receipt of Ex.P.1, the Sub-Inspector of Police – PW.10 registered Crime No.20 of 2008, under Section 302 I.P.C., against the accused, and started investigation. Thereafter, the Investigating Officer (IO) – PW.11 caused the scene of offence panchanama, inquest on the dead body and sent the body for post-mortem thereof. He examined LWs.1 to 27, and ultimately, filed the charge sheet alleging an offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C., against the accused. The trial Court framed the charges and the trial was taken up. PWs.1 to 11 were examined by the prosecution and Exs.P.1 to P.15 were filed. Broken pieces of bangles, said to be of the deceased, were marked as M.O.1. The trial Court convicted the accused for the offence under Section 302 I.P.C. and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life. Hence, this appeal. Sri Pavuluri Sreenivasulu, learned counsel for the accused, submits that there was absolutely no evidence whatever to support the conviction of the accused. He contends that PW.1, who submitted the complaint - Ex.P.1, was declared hostile and whatever was stated by her in the chief-examination against the accused was proved to be not reliable. He further submits that PW.1 did not speak about the presence of PW.2 at the Bunk, nor the same was mentioned in Ex.P.1, whereas PW.2 stated that he too was present along with his wife at the Bunk, when the accused was said to have come in the opposite direction and informed about the incident. He submits that PW.2 was not declared hostile and from him it was elicited that he was not examined by the police at all and that his mental condition was stable. Learned counsel further submits that barring the deposition of PWs.1 and 2, there was no other evidence that throws light upon the occurrence, much less to link the incident to the accused. Learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, submits that the accused had a clear motive to put his wife to death suspecting her character and that he availed the loneliness in a different village and committed the crime. She submits that though PW.1, who submitted a complaint, has turned hostile, substantial material, to prove the occurrence, was elicited from her in the cross-examination, by the prosecution. She submits that though PW.1, who submitted a complaint, has turned hostile, substantial material, to prove the occurrence, was elicited from her in the cross-examination, by the prosecution. She further submits that PW.2 has also categorically stated in the same terms as PW.1 did, about the extra-judicial confession of the accused. The appellant is accused of committing the murder of his wife. Their marriage took place long back and out of their wedlock, they had four sons and a daughter. Both of them were living in a different village, together with the children for their livelihood, and they were doing coolie work. Though it is mentioned in the charge sheet that the accused was addicted to bad habits and had illicit relation with other woman, nothing in relation thereto was placed before the trial Court. The place of occurrence is in a totally different village. According to the prosecution, the accused was suffering from a serious ailment and on 12.02.2008, he was taken by the deceased to a hospital at Kanigiri. The Doctor, who examined the accused is said to have advised that further treatment must be obtained at the District Head Quarter Hospital, at Ongole, and accordingly, they proceeded to that place, on the same day. It was mentioned that after completion of the treatment at Ongole, they proceeded to Marlapadu, on account of the fact that their native place is far away from Ongole and they do not have any shelter at that place. We can proceed on the assumption that the accused and the deceased, went to the house of their distant relations – PWs.1 and 2, at Marlapadu. The incident is said to have taken place at about 8.30 A.M. on the next day. It is a village and by that time, the people will be active in getting ready to go to their respective works. In case any instance of death, leave alone murder takes place, it cannot remain unnoticed. While PW.1 is said to have gone out around 8.00 A.M. to pay the instalments of a chit transaction, her husband, PW.2 is said to have gone out, after taking the breakfast. The only basis for PW.1 to state that the accused has committed the murder of his wife, is the alleged confession made by him, that too, when they came across each other in a street. The only basis for PW.1 to state that the accused has committed the murder of his wife, is the alleged confession made by him, that too, when they came across each other in a street. If, in fact, the accused said that he committed the murder of his wife, any person in the place of PW.1 would make an attempt to nab him. Even according to PW.1, quite good number of persons were there, when the accused spoke to her. She is said to have gone to her house in a shocked condition. It is she, who gave the complaint in Ex.P.1. She did not make any mention about the presence of her husband, when she received any information or any attempt having been made, to nab the accused. She was declared hostile and was subjected to extensive cross-examination by the Public Prosecutor. Nothing substantial was elicited from her. Whatever little inculpatory was said by her in the chief-examination, was subjected to thorough cross-examination on behalf of the accused. The version of PW.2 is substantially different. Though PW.1 did not make any mention of his presence, at the Bunk, he stated that he was present along with his wife at that place. While PW.1 stated that the accused proceeded and no attempt was made to nab him, PW.2 stated that though the accused was caught by the persons at that place, he escaped from their custody. Though PW.1 was declared as hostile, no such step was taken vis-à-vis PW.2. It is important to note, what PW.2 said at the end of the cross-examination by the accused: “I do no know how Santhamma, the deceased, met with death. Anjaiah (accused) did not state anything to me. I was not examined by police. At our house, supporting the wall there are stones including at frontage wall.” In the re-examination by the prosecution, he stated that: “My mind is not working properly to give answers now. Hence, I am unable to say what I am stating.” The rest of the witnesses are either those, who figured as witnesses in the Panchanama, or others, who supported the prosecution. The case must stand or fall on the evidence of PWs.1 and 2. Hence, I am unable to say what I am stating.” The rest of the witnesses are either those, who figured as witnesses in the Panchanama, or others, who supported the prosecution. The case must stand or fall on the evidence of PWs.1 and 2. It is true that the answers of an accused in reply to the questions in the course of examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C., cannot be treated as significant, nor can they have any serious impact upon the other evidence, adduced by the prosecution. All the same, the version of the accused therein, cannot be ignored altogether. He stated that though himself and his wife went to the house of PWs.1 and 2, in the month of December, 2007, he did not go to their place in February, 2008 at all. In a way, he has stated that he was not present at the scene of offence at all. Once PW.1 was declared hostile and her evidence was found to be inconsistent not only with the statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., but also the complaint submitted by her, i.e. Ex.P.1 and PW.2 has categorically stated that he did not know as to how the incident has taken place, it is just impossible to hold the accused as guilty of the offence. It is also important to note that after closely observing the demeanour of PW.1, the Court made the following observation: “The witness is giving answers at her choice for whatever put to her mouth in the cross-examination by defence.” Even if one takes into account, the ordinary human conduct it is difficult to imagine that a man starts suspecting the character of his wife after they became the parents of five children, or that he would think of killing her at time, she was getting him treated for a serious ailment or that he would chose the place where he got the shelter for the night, to commit the crime. It is not at all safe to rest the conviction on such slippery, uncertain and wavering evidence. Hence, the Criminal Appeal is allowed. The conviction and sentence ordered in S.C.No.155 of 2008 on the file of the Sessions Judge, Ongole, dated 18.08.2008, against the appellant-accused, are set aside. The appellant-accused shall be set at liberty forthwith, if he is not required in any other case. Hence, the Criminal Appeal is allowed. The conviction and sentence ordered in S.C.No.155 of 2008 on the file of the Sessions Judge, Ongole, dated 18.08.2008, against the appellant-accused, are set aside. The appellant-accused shall be set at liberty forthwith, if he is not required in any other case. The fine amount, if any, paid by the appellant-accused shall be refunded to him. The miscellaneous application filed in this appeal shall also stand disposed of.